Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Increase sync watchers period to 1 second #17583

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

serathius
Copy link
Member

@serathius serathius commented Mar 13, 2024

Ref #16839

Picked based on

object size streams sync duration[s] response throughput[MB/s] etcd memory [GB] 50%ile latency[s] 90%ile latency[s] 99%ile latency[s] 99.9%ile latency[s]
1MB 20 0.1 1579 14.9 3.47 6.32 8.22 9.4
30KB 1000 0.1 2006 5.5 4.26 12.74 18.81 22.69
3KB 10000 0.1 2061 1.8 4.78 12.82 19.33 23.68
1MB 20 1 1634 9 3.45 5.63 7.98 9.34
30KB 1000 1 2257 1.4 4.07 11.76 17.8 21.87
3KB 10000 1 2154 1.1 4.29 11.74 18.01 22.36

@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Mar 15, 2024

Propose to add a config item, which defaults to 1s in main branch, and defaults to 100ms in the stable releases to keep the existing behaviour by default.

#16839 (comment)

@ahrtr
Copy link
Member

ahrtr commented Mar 15, 2024

Propose to add a config item

This is a simple change. If there is no any objection, we can delegate the change to other contributor to share your load.

@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

Right, with K8s mitigation to stop sending watch to etcd, I don't think it's critical for now. Leaving it for someone to pick up.

@jmhbnz jmhbnz changed the title Incrase sync watchers period to 1 second Increase sync watchers period to 1 second Apr 2, 2024
@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: serathius

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

Updated the PR to provide context about how the variable was picked. I don't think there is a reason to expose is as configuration option, as benchmark results showed clear improvements.

ping @ahrtr for review

@k8s-ci-robot
Copy link

@serathius: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Required Rerun command
pull-etcd-integration-2-cpu-arm64 5f029e0 link true /test pull-etcd-integration-2-cpu-arm64
pull-etcd-integration-4-cpu-arm64 5f029e0 link true /test pull-etcd-integration-4-cpu-arm64
pull-etcd-integration-1-cpu-arm64 5f029e0 link true /test pull-etcd-integration-1-cpu-arm64
pull-etcd-integration-1-cpu-amd64 5f029e0 link true /test pull-etcd-integration-1-cpu-amd64
pull-etcd-integration-4-cpu-amd64 5f029e0 link true /test pull-etcd-integration-4-cpu-amd64
pull-etcd-integration-2-cpu-amd64 5f029e0 link true /test pull-etcd-integration-2-cpu-amd64

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@serathius serathius force-pushed the sync-watchers-1s branch 2 times, most recently from 178c3b9 to 98540ba Compare November 29, 2024 14:33
@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

Ok, test results showed the issue of many existing etcd client recepies depending on time to first event from watch created on concrete revision. Don't think we can move forward with this solution without separating newly created wachers from misbehaving ones.

@serathius
Copy link
Member Author

At that point it would be better to do #17563

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 29, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 66.31%. Comparing base (4068189) to head (2c61a00).
Report is 10 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
server/storage/mvcc/watchable_store.go 93.44% <100.00%> (-0.03%) ⬇️

... and 85 files with indirect coverage changes

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17583      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   68.67%   66.31%   -2.37%     
==========================================
  Files         420      420              
  Lines       35583    35582       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        24438    23595     -843     
- Misses       9713    10527     +814     
- Partials     1432     1460      +28     

Continue to review full report in Codecov by Sentry.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4068189...2c61a00. Read the comment docs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants